[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)HOW FAR WILL OSA GO TO DESTROY ITS CRITICS? - Page 2 - Operation Clambake Message Board

Finally got an answer that seems to explain those a.r.s. postings about a letter which instructed OSA agents to be polite, logical and reasonalbe which would point out how rude, unreasonable and bigoted scientology critics are.

>Hi Thomas J. Best and Y:
>Thanks for the information you provided.
> One of the versions supplied by Y
> sounds familiar, but at this point, I
> can't remember exactly what I read
> (only that it was posted within the
> last few weeks). But I now know, if a
> post interests me and I don't have time
> to read it properly, I need to put it
> somewhere so I can come back to it
> later.

Most of these are old and have been reposted here many, many times over the years. You probably read a repost of one of these.
>So were any of these real OSA/COS
> briefings or just jokes or mock ups by
> critics?

These were very real. And very ineffectual. We DID have some real high ranking Scientology types from time to time come to ARS to try to deal with ARS. They found that hard questions they did not want to answer were asked. They found lies were exposed, often by direct quotes from Hubbard.
They left.

Here are a few handy quotes dug up by Martin Hunt to save and use on such types who might from time to time come to ARS to 'reason' with th' critics.

Save them for later.

"A congress MUST An organization MUST *Answer* people's questions. This is the primary public complaint---that Scientologists in the organization or out won't answer directly questions asked about this or that." -HCOB 18 June 1957,

Tigger: Well rereading it while putting in the paragraphs, it does answer some questions about the way E.J. the Happy Scietologist, who was so polite and complimentary and helpful, conducted himself here in contract to the usual in-your=face
attack dog scieno that usually drops by, it is not the exact instructions I remember reading.

However, it should be a good lesson to remind all of us, that for people who know nothing or little about scientology, those who APPEAR TO BE THE MOST FAIR-MINDED, LOGICAL, POLITE, ETC. usually win the battle.
Appearances do count, especially to those people who do not understand or know the real issue with scientology.

COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

Finally got an answer that seems to explain those a.r.s. postings about a letter which instructed OSA agents to be polite, logical and reasonalbe which would point out how rude, unreasonable and bigoted scientology critics are.

>Hi Thomas J. Best and Y:
>Thanks for the information you provided.
> One of the versions supplied by Y
> sounds familiar, but at this point, I
> can't remember exactly what I read
> (only that it was posted within the
> last few weeks). But I now know, if a
> post interests me and I don't have time
> to read it properly, I need to put it
> somewhere so I can come back to it
> later.

Most of these are old and have been reposted here many, many times over the years. You probably read a repost of one of these.
>So were any of these real OSA/COS
> briefings or just jokes or mock ups by
> critics?

These were very real. And very ineffectual. We DID have some real high ranking Scientology types from time to time come to ARS to try to deal with ARS. They found that hard questions they did not want to answer were asked. They found lies were exposed, often by direct quotes from Hubbard.
They left.

Here are a few handy quotes dug up by Martin Hunt to save and use on such types who might from time to time come to ARS to 'reason' with th' critics.

Save them for later.

"A congress MUST An organization MUST *Answer* people's questions. This is the primary public complaint---that Scientologists in the organization or out won't answer directly questions asked about this or that." -HCOB 18 June 1957,

Tigger: Well rereading it while putting in the paragraphs, it does answer some questions about the way E.J. the Happy Scietologist, who was so polite and complimentary and helpful, conducted himself here in contract to the usual in-your=face
attack dog scieno that usually drops by, it is not the exact instructions I remember reading.

However, it should be a good lesson to remind all of us, that for people who know nothing or little about scientology, those who APPEAR TO BE THE MOST FAIR-MINDED, LOGICAL, POLITE, ETC. usually win the battle.
Appearances do count, especially to those people who do not understand or know the real issue with scientology.
Tigger

P.S. For some reason the smallifying did not work on this post. Those lines which show a > are quotes from my post which the a.r.s. poster was
answering.

COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

"For people who know nothing or little about scientology, those who APPEAR TO BE THE MOST FAIR-MINDED, LOGICAL, POLITE, ETC. usually win the battle."

That is very important! But if indeed the OSA are trying to apply this, then we have a potential to be much better at it than them, because we have the facts, and we can reveal when they are politely stepping around them (the internet habit of quoting the post and point to the fallacies is very useful, though many find it annoying. i wonder why? But then it is important to first and foremost argue with those things scientologists won't try to deny, rather than for instance the Crowley connections.